In the last segment of our next generation browser benchmarking and
comparison, we looked at user interface features and installation
details. We also benchmarked install times and application
launch times. We now will turn our attention to CPU and
memory usage in this segment. We'll also briefly contrast
security in the next gen browsers. This segment will be
followed by a third and final installment in which we'll examine
performance in popular benchmarks and standards support.

4. Resource Usage

One of the most critical aspects of a program is the amount of
resources it uses per the amount of work it does. We measured
memory and CPU usage for each browser with ten tabs open and loaded --
DailyTech, AnandTech, CNET, CNN, Sports Illustrated, Gamefaqs, Google,
Yahoo, Bing, and Facebook (logged in). We then took
measurements after 15, 20, and 25 minutes of operation.

When it comes to memory, Firefox really shows its worth. This
may be surprising to some as early in its development the Firefox
browser was known as a memory hog, due to memory
leaks. This has completely turned around and it is now the
slimmest entry. Namoroka uses significantly more memory than 3.5.2, but
hopefully this is just one of the rough edges that are to be expected
of an alpha release.

Looking at the rest of the pack, Opera deserves an honorable mention
for a close second in memory usage. Safari and Chrome, on the
other hand, were both memory hungry. However, no application
was quite as bad when it came to memory as Internet Explorer 8, which
used nearly twice the memory of its closest competitor.

Turning to the CPU, Opera was in the lead for least average
use. Opera 9.6 also led for the lowest maximum observed CPU
use. Opera 10.0 did show a rather high maximum
usage. This is due to a brief, rather uncharacteristic,
spike. This appears to be a rather isolated occurrence, but
nonetheless we kept the result.

Chrome, Safari, and Internet Explorer were all rather poor when it came
to CPU use. Chrome 4 ate up the most CPU, topping at an
unpleasant maximum of 64 percent. Firefox, on the other hand,
showcased low usage (with no add-ons installed), though 3.6a1 was a bit
more CPU hungry than 3.5.2. Again, hopefully these issues
will be resolved before release.

5. Security:

Having looked at the resources used, its also important to look at what
is being done with them. We already concluded that Opera
provides the most built in features (non-security) in our first review
(though Firefox wins when add-ons are considered). But what
about security features?

The below table illustrates some highlights of these browsers' track
record:

Browser

Tab/Process Isolation

Private Browsing Mode

Popup Blocking

Ad-Filtering (JS, Flash)

Anti-Phishing

Malware Blacklist

Unpatched Security Flaws, Secunia

Unpatched Security Flaws, SecurityFocus

Opera
9.6

No

No

Yes

Yes, click required

Weak

Weak

0

2

Opera
10.0

No

No

Yes

Yes, click required

Weak

Weak

0

2

Firefox
3.5

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Moderate

Moderate

0

0

Firefox
3.6

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Moderate

Moderate

0

0

Chrome
2

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Weak

Weak

0

0

Chrome
3

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Weak

Weak

0

0

Chrome
4

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Weak

Weak

0

0

IE
8

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes (via InPrivate Filter)

Strong

Strong

2

16

Safari
3

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Weak

Weak

0

0

Safari
4

No

Yes

Yes

Via add-on

Weak

Weak

0

0

As you can see, security is a rather confusing topic to rate the
browsers on. On one hand, IE
8 offers an excellent private browsing mode, tab isolation,
and great blacklisting of malicious sites. On the other hand,
its InPrivate Filter doesn't catch all ads. IE 8 is also the
most frequently attacked and exploited browser, though Microsoft puts
great effort into patching as quickly as possible.

Despite this, IE 8 for the very inexperienced/naive user is probably
the best bet as it blocks more blatantly malicious sites than the rest
of the field. Microsoft-sponsored research puts this block
rate at 81 percent versus the next closest competitor -- Firefox -- at
27 percent. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but
Microsoft deserves praise for its progress on this front.

Chrome offers good overall protection with tab isolation, a private
browsing mode and less vulnerabilities, but it is victim to probably
the most ads of any of the browsers. Firefox is a close
runner up to IE 8, especially when add-ons are considered.
However, it lacks tab isolation. Opera and Apple have both
put a fair deal of thought into their security efforts, but they just
aren't as strong or focused as those of Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google.

Note: All benchmarks
were performed in 32-bit Vista on a Sony VAIO laptop
with 3 GB of RAM, a T8100 Intel Processor (2.1 GHz), and a NVIDIA 8400
GT mobile graphics chip. The number of processes was kept consistent
and at a minimum to reflect stock performance.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I have heard now 3 people testing IE... yet not a single one has posted they also tested data on a SINGLE other browser. This makes all of your data worthless. If even a single one of you also did a FF 3.5 or a safari test, then your comments would be worth while, instead they are more fodder for the author.

So after 3 or 4 requests for someone to mention numbers for other than IE you finally respond and I am the idiot? hrmm someone needs to learn how communication works (hint it isn't me).

As I predicted in my first comment along these lines, it isn't like the article author has anything against Microsoft with his steller and unbiased reporting... just in case you missed this the first time I will clarify... that is complete sarcasm.

Whining at me for asking for more information makes your case look weak. Also you have only posted numbers for IE here so am I supposed to read your mind and assume you did others? or maybe you might want to add that little tidbit in next time huh?

You are complaining (which is another term for whining BTW) about my comments. My comments are playing devil's advocate with your data. If you do not give some legitimacy to your data (with the Firefox, Chrome, or Safari numbers you claim you got) then your data is as bogus as the author's.

You can tell me to quit my "flappin" all you want, it does not make my point any less right. I would use a metaphor to point out your folly but people on this site tend to complain even more about that than you do about me trying to point out you are fanboy-ing for Microsoft when you make wild claims without facts.

you can't legitimize the data because there is no baseline for comparison as none of the browsers meet 100% specifications. You quest for legitimacy is unattainable.

The only common data point is the page content itself, which is also in question because we don't know anything about the testing methodology. Given there is only one test machine then it is highly unlikely the test was done simultaneously which opens the door for a change in the website to askew the results.

There can also be browser specific ads on these sites that will cause differences in the amount of data used by each browser visiting the exact same site which also invalidates the testing methodology completely. The testing should have been done in a controlled environment.

fanboying for MS? The old fanboy argument? Seriously idiot? The browser I'm typing this in is Firefox, get real loser.

"you can't legitimize the data because there is no baseline for comparison as none of the browsers meet 100% specifications"

To obtain legitimacy in my eyes I need atleast 1 person to show real data from 2 browsers. How is that unattainable? if you computer incapable of handling 2 different browsers?

Step 1, Do the 10 pages with IE8, record data. Post data.Step 2, Do the 10 pages with FF3.5 record data. Post data.Step 3a, Discuss how the IE8 data did not match while the ff3.5 did, ORStep 3b, Discuss how the IE8 data did not match nor did the ff3.5, and mention how both were off by X ammount +/- the article.

That is how a debate/discussion should work.

Instead you did just Step 1 and went straight into left field and claimed that step 2 and 3 weren't needed because due to your own biased opinion it would produce incorrect results from what you expect.

I understand you want to complain about the "incorrect" results about IE8, I also note that the author has never been kind to Microsoft products. This alone does not make his data incorrect.

To sum it up one more time seeing as you miss it time and time again, If you show 1 point of data it is worthless unless you give it a bit of validity with providing firefox or safari or chrome data as well. As much as you guys are crying about the issue I am surprised people haven't just provided fake information by now just to make their point (albiet it is just as BS as anything else you have been posting atleast it is "data").

I understand you are all up in arms because my opinion is different than yours so you have to hate me just because you haven't learned adult interaction, but if you want your point to come across as more than just fanboy comments and have a bit of intelligence into them, then you need more than just "hey you are wrong! boo hoo"

all the steps have been done by myself and others. ive tested nearly all the browsers in the article.

and no, one point of data is fine. the data is checked against the sites themselves as they are the baseline. the browsers are the variables. there is no baseline between variables because there is no browser that renders all pages perfectly. get it genius?

Let me explain this again for those in the cheap seats as you are missing my point blantantly.

If I say my numbers for IE are 200 MB lower that is a single datapoint with zero comments to back it up.If I say my numbers for Firefox 3.5 MATCH exactly, then my numbers for Firefox 3.5 AND IE are both given a second data point and both look like they can be compared to the charted data.

WITHOUT the second data point you can give the IE numbers with 10000 pages open and they are meaningless.

quote: Let me explain this again for those in the cheap seats as you are missing my point blantantly.

quote: Please try to keep up with the discussion next time.

You need to lose the condescending attitude. It is unnecessary and it just makes you look like a tool with a weak argument. I am not insulting you (defending you in other posts actually) so do not insult me. Nothing about this is personal so don't make it that way.

You have explained your self repeatedly and everyone understands what you are trying to say. They are not disagreeing because they fail to understand your point. They are disagreeing because your point is wrong.

We are not interested in comparing IE to FF. It is not necessary to use FF as a data point on two different machines. I do not care if the same IE to FF ratio is maintained or differs on other machines. I am not interested in a correlation or lack thereof with other broswer performance across multiple platforms. I simply care about the IE to IE comparison on two machines.

Look at it this way... Imagine this article was not a browser comparison at all. Instead imagine it is simply an article about memory usage in IE. The author has stated that with a given set of pages open that IE consumes 500 megs of memory. 5+ other machines show it to be in the ~180 meg range. There is a problem with that. The benchmarker needs to go review his testing and find out where he introduced a variable. (and again...it does not matter if that same variable affects FF or doesn't...not interested)

It's been a day since your original post and still no response from JM or any other of the staff members. By now it would be appropriate for them to at least acknowledge that they are looking into it regardless if they have found the cause of the discrepency.